By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a discussion on MSNBC, Rep. Maxine Waters urged for the 25th Amendment to be invoked against President Trump due to his actions, specifically his removal of Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board. Waters emphasized the urgency of addressing the situation, asserting that Trump’s actions pose a danger to the country and democracy. The conversation was spurred by Trump’s removal of Cook, leading to a lawsuit and escalating tensions between the White House and the Federal Reserve. Waters’ remarks followed the firing of Cook by Trump, which was challenged by Cook.
Read the original article here
Rep. Maxine Waters’ call for utilizing the 25th Amendment to assess Donald Trump’s fitness for office is a subject that immediately sparks a range of reactions, and rightfully so. It’s a significant move, politically charged and legally complex. At its core, the suggestion is to investigate whether the former president is mentally or physically capable of fulfilling the duties of the presidency. This goes beyond simply disagreeing with his policies or actions; it directly questions his capacity to lead.
The idea of invoking the 25th Amendment is not to be taken lightly. It’s a mechanism designed for situations where the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. This typically involves a formal process, potentially including medical evaluations and subsequent votes by the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet, and even, ultimately, Congress. The implication is that there are significant concerns about the former President’s cognitive abilities or overall health, leading to the belief that he might be unfit to serve. Some view this as a necessary safeguard, a way to protect the nation from potential instability.
Of course, the political landscape makes such a move incredibly difficult, almost an impossibility. The requirement to remove a President under the 25th Amendment holds a substantially higher bar than impeachment. Given the deeply entrenched partisan divides, securing the necessary support to trigger the amendment seems improbable. Moreover, the very act of calling for its use is often interpreted through a political lens, with opponents likely viewing it as a purely partisan attack. It is a political maneuver and will be seen by many as such.
However, let’s consider the underlying sentiment. Many people agree that the question of Trump’s capabilities is a valid one to ponder. This isn’t about mere disagreement; it’s about assessing whether someone can effectively lead the country. Whether it’s the intensity of his rhetoric, some of his policy decisions, or specific statements he has made, there’s a perception for some that something might not be right. This resonates with the wider public. It is easy to suggest many things are wrong with Donald Trump and as the old saying goes, it would take more than three years to scratch the surface of what’s wrong.
The fact that the former President’s actions have come under scrutiny from multiple sectors gives credence to Ms. Waters’s concerns. Whether one supports or opposes his political stances, it’s undeniable that he has had an impact on public discourse. In this sense, the call to use the 25th Amendment, even if unlikely to succeed, serves as a provocative statement. It highlights these concerns and keeps the discussion alive. It is important to understand the 25th Amendment and understand the difficult process of implementation before jumping on the bandwagon.
Critics will invariably point out that such calls are hypocritical, especially if they come from those who may have, intentionally or not, downplayed concerns about the current administration or other political figures in the past. This highlights the delicate nature of the situation. Any suggestion of a president’s incapacity carries the risk of being perceived as politically motivated. Some argue it would be easier to find out what’s “right” with Trump, given the many perceived flaws. It’s a political calculation to consider the optics of everything and what the motivations might be.
Then there is the age-old issue that all those with power should recognize. The fact that Ms. Waters has a long tenure in politics should not be discounted either. Like it or not, many voters have become tired of what seems to be the same politicians, and they believe the time has come for a change. It’s fair to say that this would need to include someone of a different age group and a different stance, someone younger and more in tune with the times.
Ultimately, the debate over using the 25th Amendment in relation to Donald Trump’s fitness is complex. It delves into questions of leadership, mental health, and political strategy. The call itself is a reflection of the intense political climate and the deep divisions that have come to characterize the United States. It serves as a reminder of the serious responsibility of the president, and the importance of ensuring that the person in the White House is capable of governing effectively, whether or not this mechanism would be appropriate or successful in this particular case.